By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

A QUEEN’S counsel filed a civil suit for libel against Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell yesterday over the latter’s statement on a pending judicial review that implied that the high-profile lawyer was dishonest and a liar.

In a writ filed in the Supreme Court by Fred Smith - who is seeking $3 million aggravated, exemplary and punitive damages - Mr Mitchell is accused of libel by tarnishing the reputation of Mr Smith as a result of a statement given by the cabinet minister for publication in the February 15 edition of The Tribune.

Mr Mitchell at the time had dismissed Mr Smith’s fears that the Immigration Department’s actions would spark a second homeowners “exodus” from Freeport when he described the Callenders & Co QC as “a stranger to the truth” during his backing of the Department’s handling of the case involving Coral Beach Homeowners Association president, Bruno Rufa.

Mr Mitchell, in an e-mailed response to Tribune Business on Mr Smith’s comments in February, said: “Mr Smith is well known for hyperbole and gross defamatory statements. I’m not sure if he knows the truth if it stares him in the face.”

The writ filed by Mr Smith said: “In their natural and ordinary meaning, the words complained of in the article meant and were understood to mean that Mr Smith is dishonest and a liar.

“These statements were not made in the course of parliamentary proceedings. They were made by Mr Mitchell in his individual capacity. As such, parliamentary privilege, such may lawfully exist, is not a defence to these defamatory statements,” the writ noted.

“By reason of having published or caused the publication or continued publication, of the article, Mr Smith QC has been seriously damaged in his character and personal and professional reputation and as a consequence claims inter alia general, aggravated, exemplary and punitive damages.”

Mr Smith said these are supported by choice of words and tone in the statement and Mr Mitchell’s awareness “of the foreseeable risk of re-publication and the likelihood for the allegations to go viral on social media - a phenomenon that is a legitimate factor to be taken into account in the assessment of damages.

“Mr Mitchell would have been well aware that it is not in the public interest for the public to be misled. The fact that the allegations were made four days before the second judicial review hearing in Mr Rufa’s case, Mr Mitchell has chosen to make those comments at a critical time in the proceedings to undermine Mr Smith.

“Unless further restrained, the defendant will further publish or continue to publish or cause or permit to be published the words complained of or any similar words defamatory of Mr Smith,” the writ further alleged.

Mr Smith’s civil suit highlighted his experience in the law, noting that he was admitted to practice at the Bar of England, Wales and the Bahamas in 1977, at the “unprecedented tender age of 20 years” and has been in active private practice ever since. He has had an extensive practice in human rights, constitutional and administrative law, personal injury, regulatory litigation relating to the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, and criminal and civil litigation practice.

He was admitted to the Inner Bar of The Bahamas and in 2009, he was appointed one of Her Majesty’s Queen’s Counsellors, the highest appointment which a member of The Bahamas or English and Welsh Bars can achieve. This title has been bestowed on fewer than one per cent of The Bahamas’ current counsel and attorneys in 2009.